In the cacophony of online discussions, Americans less frequently center their arguments on theological understanding. Instead, worldly logic—particularly economic and political considerations—dominates their discourse.
While theology occasionally serves as a moral framework, it often does not shape core conversations about modern life. MIG Reports analysis shows theological discussion is dwarfed by topical and current events takes. While some say Americans are less concerned with religious topics, others suggest these conversations may be playing out offline.
Americans are certainly becoming less religious in the traditional sense, but that doesn't mean they're becoming more rational or empirical.
Economic concerns overshadow theological narratives across most conversations. Topics such as inflation, government spending, and job security consume the majority of discussions. This focus forms a results-driven culture that values tangible, practical outcomes over abstract spiritual ideals.
For example, users discuss rising grocery prices and gas costs with an urgency rooted in immediate personal impact. There is also a universal nature to these discussions as every American faces similar economic concerns, while religious conversations are often bespoke.
Moral Framing Without Depth
Though theological language does surface, it often serves as a justification for moral arguments placed within a religious belief system. Discussions about immigration and healthcare highlight moral obligations derived from faith but largely don't delve into theological specifics.
Invoking religion on issues like immigration often emphasizes compassion, yet the primary appeal is to practical solutions. People call for things like securing the border more often than they explore spiritual philosophies or presenting their perspective through religious understanding.
This pattern demonstrates that while theology influences moral reasoning, it does so indirectly, reinforcing rather than driving the dialogue.
Division and Theology
In polarized exchanges, theology becomes a rhetorical tool for reinforcing political identities rather than a foundation for consensus-building. Conservatives often invoke religious narratives to justify nationalist or economic positions, while liberals occasionally reference theological ideals to critique perceived moral failings of policies or leaders.
Online theological discussions rarely seek to deepen understanding, instead amplifying entrenched ideological divides. For instance, comments supporting Israel often intertwine religious loyalty with political arguments, reflecting faith and nationalism related to practical outcomes.
Americans have become less religious and patriotic while placing a higher value on money, according to a new Gallup poll. Americans saying they believe religion is very important dropped from 48% in 2019 to 39% in 2023.
Discourse often centers on worldly priorities, leaving little room for collective theological reasoning.
Online platforms amplify emotional, results-oriented arguments, favoring the immediacy of economic and political topics over reflective theological debates.
Cynicism toward institutions shifts reliance from theological ideals to pragmatic reasoning as a means of problem-solving.
Many Americans believe mental health has reached a crisis level in recent years. Across the political spectrum, voters recognize the widespread and serious nature of mental health struggles is impacting society.
Economic stress, political division, and cultural upheaval have all contributed and, for many, resolving the mental health crisis has become a national priority. Americans want action, and their conversations reflect the urgency. Rising rates of untreated mental health issues also contribute to crime, homelessness, drug abuse, and societal discord.
What Americans are Saying
MIG Reports data shows:
Millennials and Gen Z
Prioritize access to care and services like telehealth.
Place a high priority on destigmatization, saying people should feel comfortable discussing and dealing with their issues.
Advocate for making mental health care as accessible as physical care through insurance coverage.
Gen X
Tie the crisis to job instability, economic stress, and societal decay.
Support early interventions in schools and robust community support systems.
Boomers
Highlight caregiving stress and the need for mental health programs targeting isolation and depression.
Call for federal funding to alleviate these burdens.
Economic Factors
Economic instability is one of the most significant contributors to mental health concerns. Inflation, rising unemployment, and stagnant wages weigh heavily on struggling Americans. People discuss:
Expanded funding for affordable mental health services.
Community-driven initiatives to provide support for those unable to access traditional care.
Recognition that economic stability directly correlates with improved mental well-being.
The Role of Politics
The political divide also shapes voter discourse.
NEW: Liberals hold a ‘Primal Scream’ event at Lake Michigan to get their frustrations out of their system after the election.
Some in the group were seen jumping in the water after releasing their primal scream.
Want systemic changes to remedy socioeconomic inequities, saying improving people’s economic outlook will improve their mental health.
Push for government-led initiatives to provide care to marginalized communities.
Believe America’s history, racism, misogyny, and inequality worsen mental health.
Conservatives
Emphasize personal responsibility, traditional values, and skepticism toward government overreach.
Blame "woke culture" for promoting victimhood over resilience, contributing to anxiety, depression, and suicide.
Suggest over-prescribing medication and excess talk therapy have worsened rather than remedied mental health issues.
Independents
Seek bipartisan solutions, balancing systemic reforms with personal accountability.
While political perspectives differ, a common thread unites them—frustration with failed solutions. Voters increasingly view mental health as a nonpartisan issue that demands urgent attention.
Cultural and Ideological Barriers
Cultural factors further complicate the mental health debate:
Stigma Persists
Despite growing awareness, many voters cite stigma as a barrier to seeking help.
Many say older generations are particularly reluctant to engage in conversations about mental health.
Polarizing Narratives
Critiques of identity politics and "woke" culture dominate conservative discourse.
This group says progressive ideologies exacerbate mental health issues by fostering division and victimhood.
They point to reactions from progressives following the election, with many examples of people screaming or crying on camera, lamenting Trump’s win.
Many also say there has been a societal shift away from resilience, with younger generations especially prone to emotional sheltering.
Potential Paths Forward
There is significant disagreement politically and ideologically about how to solve mental health issues in America. While most agree the problem is worsening and that social media is a contributing factor, there is no consensus on how to improve the situation.
While progressives tend to advocate for political or healthcare solutions, conservatives lean more toward cultural and individual solutions. Like most areas in American life, divisions create divergent paths forward.
Linguistic analysis of Gen Z (Zoomer) discourse reveals how they differ from previous generations in talking about serious issues. This generation was impacted by COVID during formative years, adding to uncertainty, social upheaval, and digital connectivity.
Gen Z is adopting a linguistic shift that blends humor with serious discourse. This new lexicon, featuring playful slang like "stressy depressy" and "hard launch my trauma" to talk about mental health shows a generation navigating societal concerns with inside jokes and a casual kind of gallows humor.
MIG Reports analysis depicts Gen Z’s unique approach to language fosters community, destigmatizes taboo topics, and adapts to modern life.
🚨Breaking🚨 Gen Z workers are being fired because they're unprepared for the workforce. 75% of companies say recent grads are unsatisfactory. 50% report a lack of motivation, 46% cite unprofessionalism, and 39% note poor communication. It's time to TEACH, not adapt to Gen Z! pic.twitter.com/O7n8j9zv2Z
Gen Z’s use of slang demonstrates a conscious effort to make heavy topics more accessible. Expressions like "trauma dumping " and "existential crisis mode" juxtapose humor with vulnerability, allowing them to discuss mental health, burnout, and societal frustrations.
Humor serves as a coping mechanism, softening the weight of these issues and making them palatable for open discussion. However, some older generations suggest this may be a form of avoidance or wallowing in damaging behaviors.
Blurring humor and gravity attempts to reduce stigma and encourages relatability and shared understanding. Young people want a communal language where they can openly discuss their experiences with a sense of belonging among peers facing similar struggles.
Employers report that many Gen Z workers are unprepared for the workplace, per MSN
Social Media: Catalyst for a Linguistic Revolution
Platforms like TikTok and X amplify the spread and evolution of Gen Z slang in a fast-paced digital world. Short-form content rewards brevity, leading to the condensation of complex emotions into phrases like "Stressy Depressy" or "Main Character Syndrome." These terms thrive in online environments where creativity and relatability are paramount, allowing rapid adoption and widespread resonance.
Social media also uses memetic expressions as tools for engagement and connection. Shared slang creates a collective identity, where users find community through humor and mutual understanding. The phrase "Touch Grass," for example, invites individuals to reconnect with reality after prolonged online engagement, symbolizing a generational push for balance amidst digital immersion.
Destigmatizing Mental Health
The use of slang to address mental health and social friction strives for openness and authenticity. Zoomers want to normalize conversations that might otherwise carry shame or discomfort. Terms like "Menty B" (short for mental breakdown) acknowledge serious experiences while reducing their emotional intensity, allowing individuals to share their struggles more freely.
This approach is a coping mechanism reaching for collective resilience. In a post-COVID, isolation and uncertainty are growing, but humor has become a tool for coping with stress and fear for the future.
Cultural Adaptation and Evolution
The Zoomer attitude toward life has been shaped by COVID, political, and cultural upheaval. Their slang is not just a response to personal challenges but also a critique of societal structures.
Many younger Americans say they feel resignation toward traditional systems and norms. They want a raw, unfiltered approach to sharing personal experiences, searching for connection and identity.
Conversations about offshoring white-collar jobs reveal concerns about economic shifts and a deeper reckoning with cultural identity, political accountability, and changing work in America.
MIG Reports analysis shows jobs-centric discussions and cultural observations permeate American thought and concern. Workers feel anxiety, frustration, and occasional resilience over what Americans are losing or fear losing—stable livelihoods, national pride, and a sense of control over their futures.
Anxiety and Adaptation
In discussions about jobs and American values, economic anxiety is a dominant theme.
Jobs: 65% of comments express fear about job security and heightened awareness of eroding employment stability.
American Values: 25% of these discussions are also anxious, placing fears in the broader context of job and economic pressures on American life.
The overlap between job discussions and American life and culture overlap in the idea that economic displacement is not merely a financial concern but a symbolic loss of upward mobility and stability—the American dream.
Adaptation emerges as a subtle yet significant counterpoint to anxiety. Jobs-centric discussions highlight American workers becoming resilient with retraining or exploring new opportunities in the face of inevitable economic shifts. This adaptive mindset contrasts with discussions about American values, where resignation—20% of the comments—forces people to accept globalization and displacement as unavoidable.
Cultural Identity and Economic Sovereignty
Perspectives diverge sharply in cultural narratives about the U.S. workforce.
Jobs: These discussions touch on the erosion of cultural identity, with 30% linking job loss to a decline in the American dream. Offshoring and layoffs are viewed as an economic blow and a loss of what white-collar jobs once represented—stability, prestige, and self-reliance.
American Values: These conversations frame cultural erosion as a technical failure of economic systems to safeguard workers. This perspective sidesteps cultural sentimentality in favor of labor-centric calls for reform.
Since the pandemic, job postings for physicians and physical therapists have surged more than 80%, while those for software developers, data analysts, data scientists, and IT operations have declined by 20% or more, per BI.
Jobs: Blame is cast beyond culture to include political leadership. Around 25% of these discussions revolve around perceived government failures to protect American jobs. This fuels frustration at both corporate and government institutions.
American Values: 30% of this discussion voices anger at corporations for prioritizing profit margins over employees.
Anxiety About Globalization
Speculative language permeates both narratives, amplifying the uncertainty surrounding job offshoring. There is both fear of future instability and speculations predicting economic trajectories.
Both sets of discussion emphasize this speculative tone, embedding it within anxieties about systemic failure. Speculative language, in tandem with frustration, paints a tapestry of concerns about global competition, its inevitability, and what it means for national sovereignty.
Contrasts and Commonalities
Worries about job security and changing American work culture show a population grappling with the future. A shifting landscape where economic sovereignty and national identity feel increasingly out of reach causes many to worry.
Jobs: Themes expand the work lens for technology, emphasize cultural identity and adaptive strategies, sharply critique political leadership.
American Values: Themes discuss offshoring as an economic trend, resentment and resignation, focus on corporate greed and the need for stronger worker protections.
Recent whistleblower testimony in U.S. Congressional hearings about UFOs and UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) has sparked a vibrant discourse on social media. Conversations across ideological divides include curiosity, skepticism, and emotional engagement.
MIG Reports analysis shows overall public discourse and partisan reactions of Democrats, Republicans, Independents are mixed.
IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION - Report on the US government’s secret UAP (UFO) program
From a whistleblower and released today by @NancyMace and discussed in today’s Congressional hearing
Across all discussions, there is awe, distrust, and speculation about the truth. People reference science fiction and popular culture as shaping their perceptions. This illustrates the influence of media in setting expectations about UAP phenomena. Many tie UAP testimony to broader questions about societal priorities and government transparency.
Democrats
Democratic discussions emphasize frustration with political leadership, particularly the Biden administration. Comments use the UAP testimony to critique government accountability. Economic concerns—especially regarding military spending—feature prominently. Around 30% express distrust in government motives, while 40% advocate for deeper investigations into UAPs.
Republicans
Republicans often voice dissident perspectives, with 40% of comments exploring potential hidden agendas or distractions. Around 35% expresses skepticism and speculation about "deep state" involvement or military-industrial interests. However, 20% support the whistleblower efforts, framing them as a courageous call for transparency.
Independents
Independents voice excitement, fear, and skepticism. They are particularly vocal about holding the government accountable, with strong calls for increased transparency. Emotional engagement often intertwines existential musings with distrust in mainstream narratives, suggesting a nuanced perspective on UAP testimony.
A growing interest in transhumanism is growing, complicating discussions of modern society, technology, and health. Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement advocating using technology to enhance human capabilities, improve health, and transcend biological limitations. It aims to extend life, augment cognition, and explore post-human possibilities through advancements like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and cybernetics.
As society grapples with the implications of enhancing human capabilities through advanced technologies, people express hope, fear, and philosophical inquiry. Sentiments are mixed, with proponents envisioning a future of limitless potential while critics warn of existential threats to human essence. Influential figures like Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari, and Klaus Schwab magnify these tensions. Each figure embodies contrasting narratives of innovation, caution, and control.
The promise of transhumanism is the exact same promise the serpent gave to Eve in the Garden.
Godlike intelligence & eternal life.
This was the first deception used to lure mankind away from God, & it’ll likely be the final deception used to lead millions to hell for eternity. pic.twitter.com/ezo6BaTFEt
Public sentiment on transhumanism oscillates between hope and fear.
Optimists use speculative language, imagining a futuristic world to highlight the transformative potential of technology on human life.
Skeptics use phrases like “if this happens, we risk...” emphasizing fears of losing humanity, ethical dilemmas, and societal divides.
Ethical debates broach questions of enhancement technologies eroding individuality and exacerbating inequalities.
Elon Musk says in order to achieve human-AI symbiosis we will ultimately need to replace our skulls so we can implant enough electrodes to interface our brains with computers pic.twitter.com/4Ri9LNsNCm
Supporters frame transhumanism as inevitable progress, while opponents warn of existential risks. Influential figures like Elon Musk, Yuval Noah Harari, and Klaus Schwab further shape opinions.
Musk’s advocacy garners optimism for innovation but skepticism about societal risks.
Harari evokes mixed reactions, with his philosophical insights inspiring some but alarming others.
Schwab polarizes most, with fears of technocratic control overshadowing support for his vision.
A viral report from CNBC claiming inflation is down triggered sharp criticism from Americans who are paying high prices in reality. The report claims, “The costs of this year’s holiday feast — estimated at $58.08 for a 10-person gathering, or $5.81 a head — dropped 5% since last year, the lowest level since 2021.” This drew outrage and ridicule from many online.
Americans feel reports like this from legacy media outlets are disconnected from reality or hellbent on gaslighting the public into believing the economy is better than it is. Average households facing financial pressures from rent, groceries, and fuel feel acute strain as many point out wages are not keeping up with prices.
Public distrust in the media and political leadership is growing as people increasingly believe elites are telling them not to believe their lying eyes. Middle- and lower-income Americans point out that it’s easy for the media and political classes to shrug off inflation and believe the reports. But most families feel the financial squeeze shopping for Thanksgiving groceries.
Just got the most insane call from a liberal family friend who I argued with viciously throughout the election. He’s in his 60s, a successful businessman, but very liberal in the most boomer sense of the word, now lives in California.
Most people disbelieve claims that inflation is improving, citing their real-life financial burdens, rising prices, and stagnant wages.
Some also point out that official job reports have repeatedly been revised down, revealing a lack of integrity in government data.
Many scoff at the claim that $58 could cover Thanksgiving costs, based on their own shopping experiences.
Three months ago, my husband went to the grocery store with me for the first time in a very long time because I generally do that on my own and he freaked out because butter was almost 8 dollars. He goes if I am panicking about spending eight dollars on butter how are people in… pic.twitter.com/IO6nIm3t0v
62% of those discussing the report online say media outlets misrepresent economic conditions to favor Democratic narratives.
Reports on Thanksgiving costs are seen as an attempt by a dying establishment to maintain the façade of their own power while downplaying voter financial struggles.
It costs $60 for a family of 4 to eat at McDonalds.
But NBC News wants you to believe that Thanksgiving dinner for 10 people is $58 - the most affordable in 40 years. pic.twitter.com/5IYmL48oQJ
Americans tie inflation concerns to broader political criticisms, particularly toward Joe Biden and Democratic leadership, often mentioning “Bidenomics.” They say things like copious foreign aid and unchecked immigration have drastically worsened domestic financial hardships. Conversations frequently highlight a disconnect between the realities of rising costs and the optimistic rhetoric presented by political elites.
Blame on Democratic Policies
Voters view massive spending on foreign aid for places like Ukraine and Israel as diverting resources away from American citizens.
Most believe Democrats have allowed open border policies, criticizing the increased competition for housing, jobs, and social services.
Democrats have religiously placed blame on corporations for price gouging, claiming they exploit consumers—and some voters accept this explanation.
Among Democratic voters, there is support for reforms targeting corporate practices that reportedly contribute to inflation.
Partisan Divide and Calls for Reform
Reactions are split, with conservatives overwhelmingly critical of the Biden administration and media narratives. A smaller group, mostly Democrats, defends inflation reports as misunderstood. However, this defense is largely drowned out by anger and despair.
Economic challenges under Democratic leadership have created an opening for conservative narratives emphasizing fiscal responsibility and populist policies. Many are excited and hopeful for a return to Trump-era economic stability, particularly middle- and lower-income voters.
Structural Changes
Voters demand tax cuts on essentials to counter inflation.
Many want to reduce foreign aid, shore up the border, and foster wage growth.
Supporters argue Trump-era economic policies delivered greater stability, calling for trust in his economic strategies.
Predictive Analysis Heading into Trump 2.0
If depressed and strained sentiments persist, economic concerns will likely continue to dominate the first months of Trump’s second administration.
Conservatives in Congress may be successful in leveraging frustration over the economy and skepticism toward Democratic leadership to implement meaningful policies. Under Trump, expect a sharper focus on fiscal accountability, corporate and government reform, and reducing the disconnect between political rhetoric and economic realities.
Democrats, meanwhile, face an uphill battle to regain voter trust. Bridging the gap between optimistic narratives and reality is critical. However, some believe once Trump retakes the White House, media narratives could dramatically shift from optimism to doom and gloom. If this happens, it’s likely the legacy media will continue to lose cachet with the people.
The GOP has an opportunity to frame itself as the party of practical solutions and working-class advocacy, provided it can implement tangible solutions and improve people’s financial situations.
Younger right-leaning Americans are making a cultural re-evaluation what they view as Baby Boomer conservative values. This often uses humor and cultural references as a medium for critiquing the old guard.
While humor may seem inconsequential, it functions as an entry point to deeper conversations about generational identity and shifting priorities. Many younger Americans say the set of problems facing conservative is different than it was 25 or 50 years ago. This influences how they look at culture, political tactics, and lifestyle decisions.
Boomers selling their homes for $2 million after buying them in 1969 for 7 raspberries pic.twitter.com/0SiTVOVYhG
For many younger, right leaning Americans, "boomer humor" embodies a worldview they perceive as disconnected from current realities. Comments often describe this humor as overly nostalgic, leaning on references and experiences that fail to resonate with a younger demographic navigating different social and economic landscapes.
Younger voices view boomer humor as representing a time when social structures were more stable and prosperity seemed attainable. They critique this saying it doesn’t encapsulate their current struggles, which include stagnant wages and housing affordability.
The critiques of generational humor reveal a discontent from what young people perceive as oversimplification of complex issues, such as national decline, cultural erosion, and economic doomerism.
"Homeownership is unaffordable for the middle class," per Bankrate.
Beyond humor, young people engage with new cultural symbols, positioning them as markers of generational identity and disagreement. Music, media, and traditions associated with boomers are often juxtaposed against emerging cultural elements more relevant to younger audiences.
Younger generations prefer modern, inclusive cultural items that align more closely with contemporary challenges. For instance, references to memes or digital media, often absent in boomer culture, are a common way to communicate the urgency of current issues.
Many younger conservatives express that boomer cultural artifacts reflect moral frameworks that no longer hold for modern societal shifts. This critique is not inherently oppositional but seeks to redefine what conservative morals mean in a rapidly changing world.
Thinking about wifejak and realizing she is the best example of rejecting boomerism, the joke is no longer “I hate my wife” it’s now become “I love my wife”. Massive cultural victory. pic.twitter.com/ElHsqAvOPC
There are three major patterns emerging in younger right-wing discussions about humor and cultural divides.
Redefining Conservatism
Younger conservatives seek to reinterpret traditional conservative values in a way that incorporates modern realities. They cite things like poor economic conditions and value shifts. Their critiques of boomer humor often function as critiques of a static understanding of conservatism.
The Role of Humor in Identity
Humor is used both to critique and differentiate. While some younger conservatives see boomer humor as alienating, others engage with it as a way to reclaim the narrative and assert their own generational identity on what people consider the emerging right.
Disillusionment with Legacy Ideals
The generational divide underscores a broader tension regarding legacy ideals, with younger conservatives frequently discussing the need to adapt to modern contexts without losing foundational principles.
The discourse around humor and generational values reveals a nuanced engagement rather than outright rejection. Younger Americans are not dismissing conservatism but are critically assessing the frameworks and symbols used to define it. Humor and other cultural items act as focal points, offering a lens through which they explore generational differences of perspective.
Bluesky, a social media platform positioned as an alternative to X (formerly Twitter), is generating conversation and mockery with many Americans still on X.
Liberals tout Bluesky as a less divisive, less objectionable escape from Elon Musk’s platform, which has recently seen a leftist exodus. But many online, like Joe Rogan, mock the platform, saying it’s a leftist echo chamber.
🚨Joe Rogan on Bluesky and Rumble:
"They keep trying to say people are going to Bluesky. You know if you go to Bluesky and say there are two genders you get banned instantly? Blue sky is just the newest echo chamber of the old Twitter. It's all these Stephen King dorks that go… pic.twitter.com/mv8Rbar7xJ
Liberals embrace Bluesky as a sanctuary from what they see as the chaos and lack of moderation on X under Elon Musk.
Conservatives critique Bluesky for fostering echo chambers and stifling debate, likening it to the heavily censored Twitter, prior to Musk buying it.
Criticisms center on perceived ideological policing and fears Bluesky will become another fragmented niche in the polarized media landscape.
These sentiments play into discussions about the death of legacy media for news and political discourse, liberal rejections of Musk and X, and questions about moderation versus free speech.
Liberals Rage Quit X
Many say Bluesky’s growing user base is comprised of over-serious liberals or trolls from the right wing. Liberals heading to Bluesky cite dissatisfaction with X’s transformation under Elon Musk.
Liberal Concerns with X
Liberals say X has abandoned polite, organic discussion in favor of overemphasizing conservative voices and allowing “misinformation” and “divisive rhetoric.”
Many are frustrated with Musk’s chaotic management style, which they say prioritizes “free speech absolutism” over safety and inclusivity.
There is also exhaustion over algorithm-driven content on X, with users hoping Bluesky will offer more autonomy and less corporate or political influence.
They view Bluesky’s structured moderation as more like Twitter before Musk, saying it was less problematic.
Bluesky looks to appeal to those disillusioned with to state of discourse on X like LeBron James and Mark Cuban.
In case you’re wondering how bad things are at Bluesky, Mark Cuban is the center-right voice of reason. https://t.co/uSxy2uoiK1
Meanwhile on X, there is mostly criticism and mockery directed at Bluesky.
A New Echo Chamber
People say Bluesky fosters ideological silos, allowing the left to remain ignorant of views they disagree with, and which caused so many to be shocked by the election outcome.
Those on X also say Bluesky is too tightly moderated, viewing Twitter-of-old as a serious threat to free speech online.
There are also accusations that Bluesky is drawing much more objectionable content than X, like CSAM and MAPs advocacy.
Many on the right or avid X users take the opportunity to mock and make memes about Bluesky users, saying they’re thin-skinned and intolerant.
People joke about Bluesky’s attempt to enforce moderation to prevent the spread of “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
Some also suggest liberals who object to Elon Musk are jealous of X’s success and the threat it poses to legacy media, refusing to participate due to sour grapes.
People question Bluesky’s long-term viability, saying X has a significant market share and citing examples like Mark Zuckerberg’s “Threads,” which had lackluster impact.
Others simply join Bluesky themselves to troll and bait what they view as ideologues who take themselves too seriously.
There are also some on X reporting that they created a Bluesky account and were almost immediately perma-banned for things like saying men are men and women are women.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=spacer}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)